Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

United Nations Resolutions

Mr. Benn: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a humble Petition signed by some hundreds of citizens of the United Kingdom most loyal subjects of the Crown. The Prayer is as follows :
Wherefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will take immediate steps to urge Her Majesty's Government to comply with the terms of all resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly and the Charter of the United Nations in its entirety.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct the Clerk of the House to read this Petition to the House.
The CLERK OF THE HOUSE (SIR EDWARD FELLOWES) read the Petition to the House as follows :
To : The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled :
The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of the United Kingdom sheweth :
That the Government and people of the United Kingdom by solemn declaration and affirmation have subscribed to the Charter of the United Nations.
And that the said Charter lays down in its preamble that the peoples of the United Nations are determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with

one another and as neighbours and to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods that armed force shall not be used save in the common interest.
And that for these purposes provision has been made by Articles in the said Charter for the peaceful settlement of all disputes and that the ultimate responsibility for the implementation of these provisions shall be the Security Council and the General Assembly.
And that Her Majesty's Government have issued an ultimatum to the Government of Egypt which not having been accepted has led to armed conflict between the two countries on the instigation of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. Hon. Members on this side of the House cannot hear.

The CLERK OF THE HOUSE :
And that the duly constituted General Assembly aforesaid—

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. It is within the knowledge of every hon. Member that an attempt is being made to drown the voice of the learned Clerk. There was shouting across the House and remarks about Pravda and so on. These people with their fingers drenched in blood have no right to come here and howl down the Clerk of the House and abuse the processes of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will continue to read the Petition.

The CLERK OF THE HOUSE :
And that the duly constituted General Assembly aforesaid has passed by the requisite majority a Resolution calling for the cessation of hostilities by Her Majesty's Government.
Wherefore your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will take immediate steps to urge Her Majesty's Government to comply with the terms of all Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly and the Charter of the United Nations in its entirety.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Sugar (Prices)

Lieut.-Col. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the estimated annual additional cost of the latest increase in sugar prices will be to British consumers.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons he has increased the price of raw sugar; and what effect he estimates that this will have on retail sugar prices.

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the rise in the price of sugar to the refiners; and what estimate he made of the effect on the consumer before making this increase.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): My Department on 28th October increased the basic price at which it sells raw sugar from 42s. 10½d. to 46s. 10½d. a cwt. in order to cover its costs on sugar during the current financial year. As a result, there was a corresponding increase in the first-hand price of granulated sugar. If the whole of this increase were passed on to the consumer it would amount to about ½d. a lb., but there is keen competition and I expect the price to continue to vary from shop to shop. Since the effect upon the retail price is not known, it is not possible to estimate the additional cost to the consumer.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As the Government have failed in reducing prices—and in some other respects as well—has not the time come for the right hon. Gentleman to follow the praiseworthy example of his right hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) and tender his resignation from the Government?

Mr. Amory: It has been the normal practice of the Government to pass on the cost of sugar to the consumer, that is to say, the average cost of the Commonwealth negotiated sugar and the world price sugar.

Mr. Willey: Why has the right hon. Gentleman jumped the gun? He has

just appointed the Sugar Board; why could he not have left this to the consideration of the Sugar Board? Does he not realise that he is open to the suspicion that he is doing this purely to help private enterprise?

Mr. Amory: The reasons arise, as I have explained, in pursuance of our normal policy of covering our costs. As I explained, I think, to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) at the time the Sugar Bill went through the House, we did not intend to sell our stocks of sugar—and these are purely seasonal stocks which will accumulate, as they always do, in the last three months of the year—to the Sugar Board but, instead, to sell them to the refiners.

Slaughterhouses

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many proposals to provide new slaughterhouses or to bring existing ones up to modern standards have been received by him; what is their estimated cost; how many have received his approval; and how many await his decision.

Mr. Amory: Since June, 1954, 201 such proposals for private slaughterhouses have been received, of which 156 estimated to cost about £300,000 have been approved. Twenty-one are under consideration. In the same period, improvements costing £330,000 have been carried out at 42 slaughterhouses provided by local authorities, and one new public slaughterhouse costing £16,500 has been built. Many local authorities are known to have proposals for building new public slaughterhouses or for major reconstruction of existing premises. Owing to the restrictions on capital expenditure, I am at present unable to approve any local authority schemes except where the work is essential in the interests of public health and safety.

Mr. Dye: The right hon. Gentleman says he is unable to approve many schemes submitted by local authorities and by private enterprise. Is this not happening at the same time that very great improvements are being made to facilities for beef imported into this country ; and is the home producer not, therefore, at a disadvantage in the quality of his produce reaching the consumer?

Mr. Amory: I am entirely with the hon. Member, I think, in wanting to see many new slaughterhouses built and existing ones improved. If the hon. Gentleman will study my answers, he will see that we do approve the very big majority of applications for private slaughterhouses, and the temporary restriction at present is on local authority slaughterhouses owing to the paramount need to restrict Government and local government expenditure temporarily.

Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is quite intolerable to show this bias against the public authorities? Why this distinction? In Sunderland, as he is well aware, we have a scheme which has been supported by all interests in the town, and we have been told it is inopportune to put it forward now because there is no chance of it being accepted. Why distinguish between the public schemes of local authorities and those of private enterprise?

Mr. Amory: Because of the distinction between public expenditure and private expenditure.

Mr. Dye: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the distinction between public and private expenditure, but surely he recognises that the meat which passes through the municipal slaughterhouse is of as much importance as the other?

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications have been received for the building or modernising of slaughterhouses in Rochester and Chatham.

Mr. Amory: One, Sir, for the extension of a private slaughterhouse in Chatham, for which consent was given on the 29th July, 1954.

Mr. Bottomley: Whilst thanking the Minister for having taken action on that occasion, may I ask him whether he realises that there are other slaughterhouses which ought to be rebuilt or modernised in order to cause less inconvenience to my constituents?

Mr. Amory: I think that may well be so, and I would say that if there are any applications for new private slaughterhouses or extensions to private slaughterhouses of which the right hon. Gentleman knows, I should be very ready to consider them.

Forestry Schools (Students)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many students there are in the forestry schools in the current year ; how many places he expects to provide for new students next year and the following year; and how these figures compare with 1954–55.

Mr. Amory: In the current session (1956–57), there are 219 students, including 97 in their first year; 125 new students are expected next year and 96 in the following year. In the last session (1955–56), the total number was 238, of whom 134 were in their first year; in the session 1954–55, the figures were 235 and 121, respectively.

Mr. Dye: Is this not a falling-off in the number of students of forestry at a time when the Government have announced greater facilities for technical education? Does this mean that we are shutting down some of our forestry schools in this country, or will they be undermanned and under-staffed?

Mr. Amory: The intake is regulated to fit the number of junior vacancies which are estimated to become available over the next year or two. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be a mistake to encourage these men to go through the training if there were not jobs either in private forestry or under the Forestry Commission when they have finished their training. I am glad to say that there is a waiting list at present for young men to enter this training, and the activities of the Forestry Commission are certainly not being curtailed.

Mr. Vane: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he is, in his reply, limiting his figures to the universities or including also forestry schools for foresters as opposed to what the Forestry Commission calls forestry officers under the control of the Forestry Commission? Does my right hon. Friend's answer cover all forestry education in this country?

Mr. Amory: These figures I have given relate to the forester schools which train young men for the junior position of assistant forester, or the equivalent in private forests.

Mr. Vane: Then they are not concerned with the universities.

Meat

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to prevent excessive quantities of imported meat from undermining the foundations of a prosperous home meat industry.

Mr. Amory: In spite of this year's increases, imports of beef from the Argentine are about 30 per cent. less than pre-war while home production is 25 per cent. greater. Current imports are not excessive, and I cannot anticipate what action might be necessary in hypothetical circumstances. The hon. Member will be aware of the steps which are being taken to adapt the livestock guarantee arrangements so as to ensure that the home meat industry continues to be fully safeguarded.

Mr. Dye: Would the right hon. Gentleman say to what level he expects the market price of home-killed fatstock to fall before he expects to take any steps to prevent this deluge, as he calls it, of imported beef?

Mr. Amory: I never called it a deluge. I have said on previous occasions what I am saying here, that imports at their current level are not excessive.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the best methods of regulating the importation of this meat would be by a tariff; and is he aware that the only way of countering the dumping of meat, with a depreciated currency, would be by a tariff which would help to pay the guaranteed price to the farmers instead of it being paid by the taxpayer?

Mr. Amory: I will, as I always do, give great weight to the views of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Royle: With all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), will the Minister note that it is not of necessity to the advantage of the consumer that there should be a limitation of supplies of imported meat?

Mr. Amory: I am well aware of that aspect; I agree with the hon. Member that it is a very important one, which has to be considered.

Laud Drainage Schemes, Kent

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for grant towards land drainage have been received from Kent during the current financial year; what was the estimated cost; how many have been sanctioned; and how many are still outstanding.

Mr. Amory: Since 1st April, 1956, applications for grant aid have been received in respect of six arterial land drainage schemes in Kent, estimated to cost £70,650. Five of these schemes, estimated to cost £69,645, have been sanctioned, and one, estimated to cost £1,005, has been approved in principle but deferred owing to restrictions on capital expenditure.

Mr. Bottomley: Does the Minister realise that this is really not doing enough, and that many people in Kent are of the opinion that more money might be spent on land drainage than on war?

Mr. Amory: When the right hon. Gentleman looks at my figures, he will see that we have approved £69,000 out of £70,000 worth of applications.

Lime (Summer Subsidy)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the effect of the extra subsidy given on lime applied to farm land in the summer months.

Mr. Amory: Wet weather and delayed harvesting interfered with summer liming. It is estimated that summer consumption was lower than last year's high record but greater than in the wet year of 1954 and much higher than it was in years when there was no summer subsidy.

Mr. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, with all this extra subsidy given in the summer, we are getting a much better distribution of lime throughout the year and more economical working?

Mr. Amory: I am quite certain that is the result. I agree with my hon. Friend that the summer subsidies have had a marked effect and, I think, have been very much to the advantage of our grassland.

Grain (Moisture Content)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider the revision of his Department's calculation of crop yields to take into account excess moisture content in a wet harvest which must be removed to bring the grain to marketable condition ; and if he will give an estimate of the percent age reduction that would apply to the 1956 estimates of grain yields if this were done.

Mr. Amory: I am looking into the possibility of making an allowance for excess moisture content. I am not, however, in a position to make an estimate of the reduction for excess moisture which would be applicable to this harvest.

Mr. Hurd: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good thing to be able to compare like with like, and that if 15 per cent. is the standard moisture content of grain before it can be sold, it would be a good thing to keep all our crop estimates on that basis?

Mr. Amory: I agree that one should always try to get better and better statistics, but this year, I think, they have been produced on exactly the same basis as during the last ten years.

Mr. Champion: How is the right hon. Gentleman going to make an allowance in this case if he cannot compute the moisture content caused by this year's harvest?

Mr. Amory: For the future, I mean. I am considering looking at the possibility of making an allowance in future returns. The difficulty this year has been that the figures we have had cover grain some of which has been dried and some of which has not, and on the returns from individual farmers it is very difficult to compute an average moisture content.

Milk

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how milk production for the past three months compares with production in the same period of 1955 and the average for the five years 1951 to 1955; and to what extent the consumption of liquid milk in the past five years has increased.

Mr. Amory: In July, August and September, 1955, sales off farms in England and Wales totalled 390·5 million gallons ; the figure for the corresponding period this year was 426·8 million gallons. The average for the five years 1951–55 was 374·8 million gallons. The quantity of milk sold for liquid consumption in the last twelve months was about 2·4 per cent. less than it was five years ago.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fall in the consumption of liquid milk, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is really scandalous to put up the retail price again, thus further depressing the consumption of liquid milk?

Mr. Amory: As I have explained to the House, the most recent increase in the price of milk—the one to be made on 1st January next—was a decision reached purely on budgetary and financial grounds.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that reply that he was not consulted about it and is no party to it?

Mr. Amory: No, very much to the contrary.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is perhaps natural that the consumption of milk should go down as the consumption of other foods has gone up and that when the consumption of other foods was so low there was a higher consumption of milk?

Mr. Amory: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that is undoubtedly so. The public today has a much wider choice of food supplies than it had five years ago.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he had with the Milk Marketing Board about the decision to increase the retail price of milk.

Mr. Amory: It is not the practice to consult with outside bodies on such an issue.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from its general unfairness, the producers and the Milk Marketing Board are very upset by the recent announcement regarding the


retail price increase for milk? Is he also aware that before the war the housewife subsidised the manufacturer and it looks as if this may happen again? Is he further aware that the producers believe that, far from helping them in their present difficulties with regard to surplus, this is likely to aggravate the position, and for these reasons will he consult the Milk Marketing Board?

Mr. Amory: I am, of course, aware of the general views of the Milk Marketing Board, but, as I explained in answer to an earlier Question, this particular decision was taken on budgetary and financial grounds.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Board in view of the complaints which it has made and the statement which it has recently issued?

Mr. Amory: I am in very close touch with the Milk Marketing Board.

Ditches (Piping and Filling)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research work is being caried out under his auspices to find more efficient and economic methods of piping and filling in drainage ditches so as to enable small fields to be amalgamated.

Mr. Amory: A small team of the Ministry's land drainage engineers is investigating methods of piping and filling in ditches, which would not only facilitate the amalgamation of small fields but also overcome the difficulties of ditch maintenance.

Mr. Hill: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that helpful information, may I ask whether he agrees that research into new methods and materials could bring very great help, particularly to small farms on the heavy difficult land?

Mr. Amory: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am looking at the matter to see if there is any other way in which I can help forward these very desirable developments.

Marketing of Horticultural Produce (Report)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the

Runciman Committee on the Marketing of Horticultural Produce.

Mr. Amory: Lord Runciman tells me that his Committee has made very considerable progress and hopes to complete its report by the end of this year or early next year.

Mr. Hill: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Committee has had the advantage of visiting the Continent, and, in particular, Germany to see the working of the farmers' co-operative in vegetable auctions there?

Mr. Amory: The Committee, or some members of it, has cerainly visited the Continent. I am not sure whether it has visited Germany or not, but I will find out and inform my hon. Friend.

Safety Regulations

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to bring forward draft safety regulations under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1956.

Mr. Amory: I hope to make the first of these regulations, dealing with first aid, in the near future. Other regulations will be made progressively after the necessary consultations have taken place.

Mr. Hill: When my right hon. Friend is preparing the regulations, particularly the safety regulations, will he at the same time prepare illustrative pamphlets and posters, and, if possible, a film on farm safety so that the regulations, when they come into force, may have with them objective illustrations to enable the ordinary farm worker and farmer to understand how to implement them?

Mr. Amory: I will consider the suggestions of my hon. Friend, both of which seem to me to be good ones.

Rabbits

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which counties are clear of rabbits; and what reports he has had of local increases.

Mr. Amory: I cannot say that any county is completely clear of rabbits. Recent reports indicate increases in some areas, mostly in the Midlands and southeast. Though so far the increases fortunately do not seem to be very marked,


the threat is a serious one and calls for the most energetic action on the part of all concerned.

Mr. Vane: Is it not a little disappointing that we cannot yet record one single county as being entirely clear? Will my right hon. Friend see that the clearing up of these pockets of rabbits is not overlooked, particularly now that the land is clear of crops and that after the frost the undergrowth will have died down and it can be seen exactly how extensive is the spread of rabbits?

Mr. Amory: The point I want to emphasise to my hon. Friend is that I cannot say for sure that any county is completely clear. In some counties it is nothing more than a rumour that a rabbit has been seen somewhere during the month. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I agree with him that this period of the year when the foliage has died down will give us a great opportunity of dealing with any survivors.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country feels that there are too many rabbits in the Government?

Mr. Amory: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I will not give any reward for any ears sent in from Members of the Opposition.

Mr. Hastings: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate as to whether the number of rabbits in the country generally is greater or less than it was at this time last year?

Mr. Amory: I should rather fear that the total number was greater than at this time last year, but I think that is inevitable owing to the course of the disease. The point is that in no county is the number of rabbits yet out of control, and, therefore, we still have a splendid opportunity of dealing with this pest.

Mr. Drayson: Has there not been an increase in the number of rats lately?

Pigs

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that in the pork and bacon market in Canada pigs are fed to one size and weight for both outlets; and if he will

investigate whether this method holds any advantage over the British market, which demands pigs of two sizes.

Mr. Amory: This question was considered by the Howitt Committee; but it concluded that in this country there were overwhelming objections to concentration on a single type of pig.

Mr. Vane: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what the objections are, because, to the ordinary man, it seems that this pendulum effect in the market which the existence of the two separate sizes and weights must bring about must always have an unsteadying effect? Even if the consumer is going to lose something in the quality of his pork, surely there would be something to be said for bringing these weights nearer together.

Mr. Amory: I think the Committee was mainly impressed that the consumer demand seems to be centred on the lighter-weight pig.

Fatstock Guarantee Payments (Administrative Staff)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many persons in his Department are employed administering the Fatstock Guarantee Payments at the present time, and how many were so engaged in January of this year.

Mr. Amory: The number of persons in my Department employed in administering the Fatstock Guarantee Payments Scheme at 1st January, 1956, was 1,410 and at 1st November, 1956, 884. On 1st April, 1956, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland took over from my Department the responsibility for administering the Payments Scheme in Scotland, together with 215 staff. The comparable figures for England and Wales on the two dates are therefore 1,195 and 884.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the new scheme is going to lead to any increase in administrative staff or whether this commendable reduction will be able to continue?

Mr. Amory: The supplementary payment that is being made may call temporarily for a very small increase in staff, but when that has been done, I would


certainly say that it would call for no permanent increase in staff, but possibly for a reduction.

Eggs

Sir J. Barlow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total production of hen eggs so far this year, compared with the com parative period last year; and how the present retail price compares with that current at the same date last year.

Mr. Amory: The total quantity of hen eggs sold to packing stations from April to September, 1956, inclusive, was 270 million dozen or about 8 per cent. greater than in the corresponding period last year. During October it is provisionally estimated that throughput of packing stations was about 23 per cent. higher than in October, 1955. Retail prices of home-produced large eggs are at present about 6d. per dozen lower than a year ago, but prices of other grades are about 1s. 0d. a dozen lower.

Sir J. Barlow: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Can he say what progress the proposed new marketing scheme is making?

Mr. Amory: The next step will be to put the scheme before Parliament for approval, and I hope to be able to do that shortly.

Ordnance Surveys (Methods)

Sir J. Barlow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new methods have been adopted by the Ordnance Survey Department in the production of maps; and to what extent they are leading to increased productivity.

Mr. Amory: New materials and processes introduced for survey work have included the use of stable materials for the large scale field surveys; the plotting of control points on the field documents by co-ordinatograph; and the use of rapid traversing equipment for minor control surveys. Self-reducing tacheometers for large scale surveys are being gradually introduced in place of chain survey methods; precise three-dimensional plotting machines are being increasingly used for air surveys; the AOE-computer at the National Physical Laboratory is being used for aerial triangulation work; and punched card

equipment for the computations of traversing and tertiary levelling. I understand that these new methods and equipment have caused output to rise by from 20 to 50 per cent.
The most important change on the drawings and reproduction side has been the use of zinc glass and plastics as a drawing medium instead of paper. New photographic techniques have also been developed. Increased output has followed from these new methods too, and also improved productions.

Sir J. Barlow: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Can he say to what extent this information is used for commercial purposes and whether this makes any considerable contribution to the cost thereof?

Mr. Amory: The Ordnance Survey Department produces the basic maps, which are then sold to commercial firms for reproduction and sale. It does a great deal of work. I believe that the progress in new methods and standards which has been achieved during recent years reflects great credit on all concerned with the Department.

Siloes (Construction Grants)

Sir J. Barlow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with recent progress in the making of grass silage; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. Silage making is well established on a nucleus of farms, but there is room for much expansion especially on our smaller farms. To stimulate this the Government have undertaken to seek power to make grants towards the cost of silo construction, and I hope to announce my proposals early in the new Session. The National Agricultural Advisory Service continues to make this problem one of its main themes.

Sir J. Barlow: Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied with the protein content of silage already made and whether it helps substantially to reduce the amount of protein imported from abroad at dollar cost?

Mr. Amory: As my hon. Friend knows, silage varies enormously in quality, but I have had many indications that the average level of quality has been improving


during the past year or two. I am quite certain that good silage does help us to save a great deal of imported feeding-stuffs. That is one of the reasons why I am anxious to encourage it. Another reason is because I am sure that it will be to the economic advantage of the farmer to make it, provided that it is good.

Land

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much agricultural land has been lost in Great Britain for building during the past five years.

Mr. Amory: Precise figures for the loss of agricultural land are not available. The only information is derived from the agricultural returns which are collected for other purposes and which exclude holdings of one acre or less and those parts of agricultural holdings not used for agricultural production. Subject to these reservations, the agricultural returns suggest that the net loss of agricultural land in Great Britain to building has been 177,000 acres over the five years 1950–51 to 1954–55. Figures for 1955–56 are not yet available.

Mr. Gurden: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the seriousness of this loss of home-produced food, and the importance of ensuring that land taken from agriculture for building is used economically by having a higher proportion of taller buildings?

Mr. Amory: I agree about the importance of making sure that we do not lose a single acre of good agricultural land if that can be avoided. On the other hand, we cannot stop this development, and therefore the aim must be to make sure that development proceeds on other than the best agricultural land.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister never realise that if he wishes to bring about the minimum use of agricultural land for building purposes and the best use of town land, all he has to do is to introduce a tax on land value and then everything will fall into place?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid there will be no time to do that during the present Session.

Mr. K. Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the figures he has

given are the net figures taking into account new land made available for agricultural purposes by cleaning, drainage and reclamation? Will he consider making an order that when land is lost through road building or town development and the like, some effort must be made by the responsible authorities to replace that land with land reclaimed?

Mr. Amory: I agree in general with what my hon. Friend has said. These figures are net. As we have inevitably to face some loss of agricultural land year by year for development, I believe that we must redouble our efforts to see that we are making up that loss in other ways, and I believe that it can be done.

Credit Restrictions

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the relaxation of credit restrictions to enable farmers to finance current operations and production programmes for the forthcoming year; and what reply he has made.

Mr. Amory: The representations I have received from the National Farmers' Union and others show that farming opinion would welcome a relaxation of the present credit restrictions. While a total exemption for agriculture would not be justified as long as these restrictions are necessary, I have said that I am convinced that the banks will continue to consider sympathetically the credit needs of farmers, and particularly of those who have suffered from the weather during this year's expensive harvest. I am satisfied that the banks are doing this.

Mr. Willey: May I express limited satisfaction with the right hon. Gentleman's reply? In view of the importance of this question of agricultural credit and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has set up many commissions and committees in his time, may I ask whether he would consider setting up a commission to consider the general question of agricultural credit?

Mr. Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the subject. I am grateful to him for, at any rate, the limited tribute that he is satisfied with my answer. I will consider all aspects of this question and all possible lines of action.

Fowl Pest (West Riding)

Mr. Drayson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the question of designating the West Riding of York shire as a white area in view of the absence during recent months of any out breaks of fowl pest in the area.

Mr. Amory: I am at present conducting a review of the "clean area" policy which I intend to discuss shortly with representatives of the poultry industry. Pending this review, I have decided not to add to the present clean area.

National Stud (Foal's Death)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further investigations have been made to find the cause of death of the foal from the National Stud which died at the Doncaster sales.

Mr. Amory: As an examination of internal organs at the Ministry's Veterinary Laboratory disclosed no evidence of infectious disease or poisoning, further inquiries would not have served any useful purpose.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of my constituents are concerned about the death of this animal and that it is not the first occasion that animals from this Stud have died at the Doncaster sales? May I again ask whether he is satisfied with the management of the Stud and that there was no trace of arsenic? Do I understand it was anticipated that this animal would have realised the highest price of any animal produced at the National Stud?

Mr. Amory: I share the chagrin of my hon. Friend at the loss of this foal, but I am completely satisfied with the management of the National Stud, and there was no evidence of arsenic or any other poisoning.

Mr. Paget: Is the Minister aware that studs, whether they belong to the nation or not, lose a percentage of foals from unascertained causes?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that that is one of the sad facts of life.

Commander Scott-Miller: Is it not a fact that this animal was a yearling and not a foal?

Mr. Amory: My hon. and gallant Friend has raised a feeling of great uncertainty in my mind which I shall take an early opportunity to resolve.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Prescription Charges

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Health by what means people who cannot afford to pay 1s. for each prescription but are not in receipt of National Assistance will be able to apply for reimbursement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) on 1st November.

Mr. Shurmer: Does the hon. Lady realise that there are many thousands of people whose income is just a little above the scale of the National Assistance Board and that today 1s. is quite a lot to them, and when they have to pay 3s. or 4s. more some of them will not be able to afford these prescriptions and it will be a difficult job for those visiting these people to find out what their income is? Therefore, the whole scheme is utterly impossible, and is not the best course to ask her to ask her right hon. Friend to abolish this and go back to the old 1s. charge for the whole of the prescription?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The National Assistance Board has already, under the present system, dealt with cases like this, and if an applicant for assistance to the National Assistance Board satisfies the Board's test of hardship in respect of any portion of the payment which he will be required to make, he will be reimbursed the whole payment; so that the person faced with a charge of 5s. for prescriptions who, in the normal case, could establish a case for 2s. reimbursement, will be met on the whole 5s.

Dr. Summerskill: In spite of the hon. Lady's explanation, can she reconcile it with the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to me on the subject on the day when he made his statement. He then said :
… all persons in receipt of National Assistance and all old-age pensioners and others who cannot meet the charges without hardship … will be entitled to be reimbursed.


What my hon. Friend wants to know and what I want to know is, will she define hardship in this context?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Hardship is the standard that has been accepted by this House and is that carried out and laid down by the National Assistance Board.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. Friend make it quite clear, because this is of the very greatest importance, whether people living on small fixed incomes who are slightly above the qualifications for National Assistance as laid down today will be reimbursed in accordance with the Chancellor's statement? We must know the answer.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the payment for prescriptions brings a case which hitherto has not come within the National Assistance hardship scale above that scale, the person concerned has a perfect right to apply and will be reimbursed by the National Assistance Board.

Dr. Siunmerskill: I apologise for pressing this point, but it is of great importance to the whole country. Will the hon. Lady read the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he makes it clear that he is not only referring to people who qualify under National Assistance, but he said to me—
and others who cannot meet the charges without hardship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 834.]
These "others" are such as those referred to by the hon. Lady for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) who will not qualify within the terms of the National Assistance Board.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The right hon. Lady is aware that there has been always one basis of hardship scale, and it may be that people who are just on the border while they are well and have not hitherto been allowable for a grant from the National Assistance Board will find it an additional hardship to pay the prescription charge, and in that event they will come within the National Assistance scale.

Mr. Swinger: asked the Minister of Health if he will exempt diabetic persons from the proposed increase in charges for prescriptions.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. But any person who, on application to the

National Assistance Board, shows that he will suffer financial hardship in accordance with the Board's standards will be able to obtain a refund.

Mr. Swingler: Was not the National Health Service introduced to relieve the hardship of the worst sufferers, and is not it a fact that diabetic persons frequently have to get several items on prescriptions? Is the hon. Lady really saying that every time they must trail down to the National Assistance Board in order to have their incomes examined?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In most cases, diabetics have comparatively long-term prescriptions which cover, from our knowledge of prescriptions, at least a month. In stable cases where the doctor is satisfied that those concerned are responsible persons, they may even get as much as two or three months' supply on one prescription.

Dr. Summerskill: Could not the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend whether he would make a statement which would relieve the anxiety of those chronic patients whose expectation of life is limited to the effect that they at least will be exempt from these extra charges?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot give the right hon. Lady any such undertaking, but I will pass her views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Minister of Health what is the normal period covered by a prescription for a diabetic patient.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: This is a matter which depends upon the doctor's decision in the circumstances of a particular case.

Mr. Price: Will the hon. Lady have special regard to the difficulties of diabetics and other chronic sick? Do their prescriptions normally cover long periods? What is the period? Is there a limit to the period and who sets that limit?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The length of the prescription is entirely a matter for the medical practitioner, but the Ministry is advised that there would be no practical obstacle in the way of prescribing up to three months' supply of insulin to a co-operative patient whose treatment was stabilised.

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements exist for the issue of composite packs to the chronic sick.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Certain composite packs are already listed in the Drug Tariff and my right hon. Friend has informed the British Medical Association that, if the medical profession consider that further composite packs for any particular condition are desirable and would be generally prescribed, he will consider, with the manufacturers, whether appropriate dispensing packs could be produced.

Mr. Price: Is the hon. Lady aware that her Answer will cause comfort to many people, and does not that reply and the Answer to Question No. 43 answer most of those who are anxious about hardship cases?

Mrs. L. Jeger: While the chronic sick are waiting for these arrangements to be made with the manufacturers, could not the hon. Lady arrange with her right hon. Friend that certain items which form a composite treatment could be treated as one prescription even under the new arrangements?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: This is not a new idea. For certain ailments it is already the practice. For example, the vaporiser set covers several items for bronchitics. Another group of items covers diabetics, and there is a dressing set of five items which are in one pack and which has been in use for a long time.

Dentists

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Health how many dentists are still required to meet the country's needs; and, in view of the fact that more students are applying for training than the Birmingham Dental Hospital can accommodate, what action he proposes to take to enable students desirous of becoming dentists to receive the necessary training.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No exact assessment is possible. Intending dental students who cannot obtain acceptance at Birmingham should seek admission at other schools. The Committee on Recruitment to the Dental Profession made a number of suggestions as to ways in which the accommodation for dental students could be increased. My right

hon. Friend hopes that all dental schools will go out of their way during the next few years to find room for all suitable students who apply for admission.

Mr. Yates: As I understand that there are some 8,000 dentists required in this country, is it not rather a tragedy that in Birmingham we should have students anxious to become dentists without any facilities for them to do so in the city? Is that not a tragedy for the country, and cannot some action be taken to remedy the position?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is necessary to take into account all the student places available in the several universities which have dental schools. That Birmingham happens to be popular and has a much greater demand on its accommodation than it can meet does not mean that there are not places available in other dental schools.

Artificial Limb-Fitting Centres

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Health which limb-fitting centres are to be moved in the near future.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Plans are being prepared for new buildings for the Birmingham and Liverpool centres, and it will also be necessary in due course to move the Manchester centre. The hon. Member is aware that my right hon. Friend is also considering the problem of accommodation for the Wolverhampton centre.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Health which of the smaller limb-fitting centres are now to be closed down.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: None at present.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Health if, when limb-fitting centres are moved to another site, he will take trans port and accessibility into consideration in view of the limited mobility of those who use them.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Doctors (Pay and Practice Expenses)

Lient.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking on the £20 million pay increase claimed by the medical profession.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It has already been made known that Her Majesty's Government would not feel justified in considering any claim for a general increase in medical remuneration in present circumstances. As to the profession's assertion that there is a contractual obligation involved, my right hon. Friend is taking legal advice on this.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As it is some time since the Minister decided to take legal advice on the matter, can we now be told what is the effect of this legal advice and whether the Government are under a contractual obligation to concede this pay increase?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am afraid that I cannot give a reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman at this moment.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health what additional payments will be made to doctors to meet increased practice expenses.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 29th October.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Minister has publicly announced that doctors will get a pleasant surprise when they receive their December cheques? May we know what is this pleasant surprise? Why the secrecy?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The earlier answer to which I referred showed that for the year ended 31st March, 1955, the latest year for which doctors' practice expenses have been reassessed, they were estimated for Great Britain to have been £23,549,227 or £1,114 per doctor, which is an increase of £114 over the preceding year. For 1954–55 the balancing payment which has to be made when the final returns are in is about £4¼ million, which works out at about £200 per doctor, and this will be paid out with the December quarterly cheques.

Seconded Staff (Colonial Territories)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Health whether, in the interests of the Colonial Commonwealth, he will make arrangements whereby those serving in the National Health Service of Great

Britain can be seconded to Colonial Territories with a guarantee of their re-employment on their return to Great Britain.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If, as I assume, my hon. Friend is referring to hospital medical staff, arrangements have been made to this end as he will see from a circular which I am sending to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Birmingham Dental Hospital

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that overcrowding has increased at the Birmingham Dental Hospital during the past six months, that waiting lists have been closed, and that owing to pressure in the local anaesthetics department urgent cases have to wait three or four days ; if he will take immediate action to expedite the building of a new dental hospital; and what action he proposes to take in the meantime to relieve the present congestion.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is aware that, in spite of the additional accommodation provided last year, this hospital is still under heavy pressure. Plans for a new hospital are under consideration ; and he is asking the regional hospital board and the board of governors to see whether steps can be taken at other hospitals to relieve the immediate situation.

Mr. Yates: Is the hon. Lady aware that at this dental hospital there is one room with 25 dental chairs in it and two others with 18 dental chairs all practically touching each other? The position is much worse than when I called her attention to it two years ago, and then the matter was "under consideration". Can we have an undertaking that urgent action will be taken by the Minister to see that this position is remedied?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am not in conflict with the hon. Gentleman over the need for a new hospital. That is accepted. An additional building was brought into operation in 1955, but the pressure on this hospital is great and it should be remembered that it is primarily a teaching hospital and not intended to provide general services in dentistry for all comers.

Black Notley Hospital, Braintree (Maltese Patients)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Health how many Maltese tubercular patients have been treated and are being treated at Black Notley Hospital, near Braintree; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Eleven, Sir, seven of whom have been discharged home. These patients have been welcomed for treatment here under arrangements made with the Government of Malta.

Mr. Harrison: Can my hon. Friend tell me why it is that there has been this large number of vacancies at Black Notley Hospital?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There are no waiting lists in that area and, as we had available beds for tuberculous patients, we were only too happy to take some patients from Malta.

Alder Hay Hospital, Liverpool (Emolument Charges)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has re ceived from doctors resident at Alder Hay Hospital, Liverpool, concerning the in crease in emolument charges.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: None, Sir.

Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that soon she will be receiving representations in that the charge on a senior hospital medical officer has been put up from £160 per annum to £350 per annum? Would she see that there is some appeal procedure when the services do not match up with the charge and, finally, can she say whether the charge applies only to bachelors or also to people who are married?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: These new charges are payable under an agreement which has been reached by the Medical Whitley Council after assessing accommodation available. In some cases the charges are higher, in others they have been lowered. This is a matter which has been carefully investigated by the Medical Whitley Council.

Mr. Tilney: Will my hon. Friend look into the question of appeal procedure?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will convey the hon. Member's views to my right hon. Friend.

Staff, Birmingham

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Health to what extent there is a shortage of nurses and other hospital staff in Birmingham.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am obtaining the latest available information from the hospital boards concerned and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Garden: Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that personnel who have reached retirement age are encouraged to continue in this service?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The retirement levels are laid down by the Whitley Council, but certainly in some circumstances staff, if they are fit and able to do so, are carrying on. and we are grateful for their help.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (MILITARY SITUATION)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's latest military operations against Egypt and the discussions at the United Nations organisation concerning them.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Defence will be making statements on these matters at the end of Questions.

Mr. Swingler: May I ask the Leader of the House if, in the course of these statements by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Defence, they will answer this plain question? Is it a fact that now both the Governments of Egypt and Israel have signified their willingness to cease fire, and is it now the position that the Government accept the sole responsibility and blame for continuing and spreading the war in the Middle East, thus putting our troops in the most odious position?

Mr. Butler: It would be a pity if we forestalled the statement of the Foreign Secretary or the opportunity that he may have for replying to the important question put by the hon. Member. I have


registered that the Foreign Secretary has himself understood the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish a White Paper giving an account of recent discussions with the Government of the United States of America on the Suez question.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with representatives of Commonwealth Governments concerning Her Majesty's Government's military operations against Egypt; and if he will publish a White Paper on the results of these consultations.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Consultations with Commonwealth Governments and Allied Governments such as the United States of America are by their nature confidential and depend for their effectiveness on the certainty that they will remain so. I cannot, therefore, agree to the publication of these consultations in White Papers as suggested.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he needs to make some reply to the widespread statements in the American Press that he misled the American Ambassador? Is he aware that we expect to be misled here, but does not he think that misleading the American Ambassador is going rather too far?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept for a moment that anything I said misled the American Ambassador.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Foreign Secretary say whether such consultations have taken place or not and whether he will publish the results? Will he say whether consultations have taken place, for example, with the representatives of the Governments of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and the other members of the Commonwealth, about the action taken by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that point in the statement which he made to the House on Tuesday of last week.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is at an end.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL MEETINGS (POLICE)

Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order. In regard to the protection of individual Members of Parliament, do you consider it necessary, Mr. Speaker, that when a Member of Parliament goes into a certain part of London to speak it is necessary to have in attendance three mounted policemen—[Interruption]—two vanloads of constables, four police cars, and goodness knows how many higher officials of the police? Would you please tell me whether I am in order in saying that if those policemen were there to protect me, I do not need it. If they were there for some other purpose, perhaps you could tell me how I can put a Question to the Home Secretary in order to advise him that it is utmost provocation to have that number of police at a perfectly passive meeting? The Prime Minister may need that protection; I do not, and the ordinary workers at the meeting do not.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think I can answer that question. If the hon. Lady wishes to put a Question to the Home Secretary, she had better put it down in the usual way.

HUNGARY

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper :

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the situation in Hungary in the light of action already taken by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a further statement on Hungary in reply to Question No. 50.
At mid-day on Saturday, 3rd November, a meeting took place between senior Soviet and Hungarian officers to discuss the technical aspects of the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Hungary. The Soviet commander agreed that no more Soviet troops would cross the border during the course of the negotiations. The meeting was adjourned until 10 p.m. that night. The Hungarian military representatives, who returned to the meeting as stated, have not been heard of since.
At the time these negotiations began, Budapest was surrounded by two Russian divisions. Another five Soviet divisions were in the country.
Early on Sunday morning, Soviet forces attacked Budapest. In the course of the morning, a message reached Her Majesty's Legation to the effect that at 8 a.m. a Soviet ultimatum had been given to Mr. Nagy's Government, threatening to bomb Budapest if the Government had not capitulated by noon. By the time this message was delivered, the building in which Mr. Nagy and his colleagues were assembled was already surrounded by Russian tanks. The fate of Mr. Nagy and his Government is not yet officially known. According to agency reports, they are under arrest.
The resistance of the loyal Hungarian forces has not been overcome, although Moscow radio has, of course, announced that they have been crushed. Moscow radio also announced the formation of a Hungarian Revolutionary Workers and Peasants' Government with Mr. Kadar as Prime Minister. The first act of the puppet Government was to appeal to the Soviet Forces Command to crush their compatriots, whom they described as "mutinous forces."
Since yesterday morning, these tragic developments in Hungary have been discussed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The General Assembly, in calling on the Soviet Government to desist from its intervention in Hungary and to withdraw its forces from the country, have asked the Soviet and Hungarian Governments to admit United Nations observers. They have also called on member Governments to make available food, medicines and other supplies which might be needed for the people of Hungary. This resolution was opposed only by the Soviet Union and its satellites.
Her Majesty's Government have decided to make a further grant of £25,000 to the Red Cross for supplies for Hungary.
In Hungary, we are witnessing a reversion to the worst features of the system of domination of other states which the world had come to associate with Stalin. The brave struggle for

freedom of a nation which was in breach of no agreements, desired only neutrality, and threatened no other country, continues against heavy odds.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people in this and other countries will believe that the action of Her Majesty's Government in using force against the people and Government of Egypt offered a direct encouragement to the Government of Russia to employ the brutal force that they did yesterday, in Budapest, to suppress the struggles of the Hungarian people for freedom and independence? In those circumstances, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the Government will not do better than give another £25,000, but will give an assurance to the House that they will do everything possible to co-operate, in order to mitigate the sufferings of the Hungarian people, by providing economic aid—

Hon. Members: How?

Mr. Healey: Resign. That is how.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will seek to mitigate those sufferings by cooperating with United Nations agencies and otherwise in providing economic aid and welfare? Specifically, will he consider offering hospitality to a substantial proportion of the 10,000 refugees who have had to flee from the Russian tyranny?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that it is the time to talk of economic aid for Hungary. There is a very different state of affairs there. I believe that in these matters the plans of the Soviet Union are usually made well ahead and are carried out irrespective of what other people do.

Mr. Callaghan: Like yours.

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) does no good to the people of Hungary, of Egypt, or of this country, in trying to suggest that these two actions are comparable. The action in Hungary is an intervention from without to suppress and prevent the independence of a country. Our intervention is to try to prevent a state of war between two countries.

Mr. Robens: A ghastly tragedy has befallen the people of Hungary. On behalf of Members of the Opposition side of the House, and, I have no doubt, of the House as a whole, I want to re-emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, that our hearts go out to the Hungarian people who have been stricken as a result of this terrible situation in Hungary.
I wish to ask three questions of the Foreign Secretary. First, would he ensure that there is no de jure recognition of this new Government of Hungary? Secondly, will he give the medicines, the food and other supplies which the Hungarians need until it hurts, and not count the cost in £ s. d.? Thirdly, as, in his statement, he indicated that the United Nations is calling on the Soviet Government to desist from their intervention in Hungary and to withdraw their forces from that country—and as I have no doubt the representative of the Government in the United Nations will support that decision of the United Nations—would it not be as well to carry out the United Nations decision on Egypt so that we can go to the United Nations with clean hands?

Mr. Lloyd: The question of recognition has not yet arisen because, as I say, the conflict in Hungary is not yet over. On the question of medicines, we did make a grant of £25,000 last Tuesday and as soon as that was spent a further grant of £25,000 was offered, as I have announced today. As I have said in answer to a question on my former statement, we shall be very ready to see an international force introduced in Hungary.

Mr. Clement Davies: Everyone, I should imagine, throughout the free world is deeply moved by the agony of the Hungarian people, but sympathy, indignation and relief are not enough. These people want their freedom. Although Her Majesty's Government have weakened our position as the moral leaders of the world, can they not do something in the United Nations to help these people? Could they not suggest to the United Nations that more than observers should go there—that an international police force might go there to take charge and, failing that, that sanctions should be then

administered against Russia, diplomatically and economically?

Mr. Lloyd: One of the difficulties of the present situation is that moral leadership is not enough. It is precisely for that reason that we had to take effective action and we have done what lay within our power to bring hostilities to an end in a troubled part of the world. I will certainly consider what the right hon. and learned Member has said, but I do not know whether it is feasible, in the situation in Hungary, to do more than is being done. I think it will be a difficult problem.

Sir T. Moore: To get down to realities, would my right hon. and learned Friend—or anyone else—tell us what the United Nations are doing, or can do, short of starting a third world war, to stop this horror in Hungary?

Mr. Lloyd: Make recommendations.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Cardinal Mindszenty was allowed to have his freedom and went back to his own people, but now, as the Russians have come in, has had to seek sanctuary in the American Embassy? Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the Cardinal's life is secure in Hungary under the present régime?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot answer that question ; I should think it is doubtful, under the new régime.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what was the voting on the United Nations Assembly Resolution on the situation in Hungary?

Mr. Lloyd: The voting was 50 in favour, 8 against and 15 abstentions. Those opposing were the Soviet bloc and the abstainers, apart from Finland and Yugoslavia, were the Arab-Asian group.

Mr. Collick: First, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that Russia would not have dared to take this action in Hungary but for the actions of his Government in Egypt? Secondly, does he not regard the contribution of the Government of £25,000 as absolutely paltry, having regard to the need?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that what the hon. Member has said is correct. I think that action would have been taken


in the circumstances, in any case. As I have explained, we gave £25,000 and as soon as that was spent we offered another £25,000.

Sir J. Lucas: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether we are going to admit some of the refugees from Hungary to this country, as an hon. Member opposite asked?

Mr. Lloyd: I can see no objection in principle to that, but it is a question of which I should like notice. It is a question of ways and means, but I can see no difficulty about it.

Mr. Collins: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that an allied leaflet, dropped over Egypt yesterday, included these words :
We have the might and we shall use it to the limit if you do not give in.
Can the Foreign Secretary say whether, in principle, there is any difference between that and the Russian threat to the Hungarians, except that they gave four hours' notice and we gave twelve hours' notice? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that the Egyptian people were told that not only the guilty few would suffer, but the innocent as well? Can he say whether the Egyptians were guilty of the same crime as the Hungarians—wanting to run their own country in their own way?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like to see a copy of the leaflet before pronouncing on that.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. K. Robinson: On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would like to see a copy of the leaflet. I have here the official translation which was broadcast on the B.B.C. last night. It reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that this is a point of order. I think the hon. Member who asked the question gave a summary of what he said was in the leaflet. On the basis that something like that was done, perhaps the Foreign Secretary would be ready to answer.

Mr. Collins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave some words which I actually took from the B.B.C. broadcast and I think they are strictly accurate.

Mr. Lloyd: As I said, I should like to examine that leaflet—[HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."]—but so far as the question of casualties is concerned I think that the hon. Member does little credit to the men of our Forces, who have conducted their operations against military targets with extreme skill and care for civilian life.

Mr. Bevan: I listened to the radio last night and heard this language, which will have been heard by all the people of Great Britain. Is it not rather staggering that the Foreign Secretary himself was not aware of the language? Was it with the consent of the Foreign Office, or of the Prime Minister, or was it language used only by the soldiers? Is it not desirable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should keep a closer check on what is being said on behalf of the people of this country at present? If he is made aware of the language of the leaflet, will he not be deeply ashamed of the language which is used in the name of the British people?

Mr. Lloyd: I said that I was not aware of the language of the leaflet—

Mr. Bevan: Why not?

Mr. Lloyd: —but I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Bevan: Is this not further evidence of something that has gone remarkably wrong with the administration? Hon. Members must realise that their constituents have already heard this language. They heard it last night and this morning. Would it not appear strange to their constituents that in the House of Commons this afternoon, at ten minutes to four, the British Foreign Secretary is able to say to the House of Commons that he is not aware of the language used in this leaflet? If we cannot do anything at all about that lot opposite, they can.

Mr. Lloyd: I should have thought that any hon. Member's or right hon. Member's constituents would have thought it very odd if the Foreign Secretary had read every line of every leaflet issued.

Mr. Elliot: No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend's attention has been called to the statement by Mr. Lester Pearson, the Foreign Minister of Canada, that the situation would be very different if the Russians had offered to turn it over


to an international police force. In those circumstances, will he give every possible support to the earliest possible establishment of this international force, so that we may set an example in this case?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Stokes: We have heard with some astonishment that the Foreign Secretary does not know of this leaflet which has been dropped over Cairo and which, from the wording, apparently purports to be our war aims. If he is not responsible for it, will the Minister of Defence, under whose authority I suppose it was dropped, tell us what he knows about it,

Mr. Speaker: May I intervene here? The statement of the Foreign Secretary was about Hungary. There will be a statement about the Egyptian situation. I think we should keep ourselves to Hungary in the meantime.

Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of order. I should like to get this clear, Sir. In your judgment, then, we may return to this subject a little later on the other statement?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order. Since it is your Ruling that we may return to this subject, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether between now and five o'clock he will himself make inquiries and then either deny or admit that this statement was sent out as a broadcast?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but no doubt what has been said has been heard. Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Griffiths: Further to that point of order. Is it not desirable that this shall be cleared up before we close this matter, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Reverting to the U.N. vote on Hungary at the General Assembly, can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether among those nations who declined to condemn Soviet aggression in this matter were India and Ceylon? If this is a fact, does it not affect the faith which we can have in their

integrity and impartiality in adjudging other issues?

Mr. Lloyd: My information is that 15 members of the Arab-Asian group abstained. I have no particulars of the countries.

Mr. Daines: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the speech made by the Prime Minister in July last, when he tried to assure us that there was a "new look" about Russia? May I suggest to him that he suggest to his right hon. Friend that it would be indecent, in view of this terrible event, to go on with the proposed visit to Russia in the spring?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a different matter.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question about financial aid to Hungary? Can he say how many other countries have offered help, and how much?

Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.

Mr. Paget: Does not the fact that the Asian-Arab group abstained on this Resolution demonstrate the extent to which we have antagonised the area of world opinion to which the Russians have shown themselves sensitive? Is not that the real tragedy of this event?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that relates to anything which has happened in the last week or so. It may very easily have a relation to the purchases of Russian arms this time last year.

Mr. Braine: In view of some of the assertions which have been made in Questions this afternoon, would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is possibly another explanation for Soviet action? Would he accept that there is a widespread view on these benches, and in the country, that the Russians were justified in drawing the conclusion, from the outcry against the firm and courageous line taken by the Prime Minister, that a good many people in the West were not willing to do more against oppression than to pass resolutions?

Mrs. Castle: Would the Foreign Secretary tell the House which nations abstained on the latest General Assembly Resolution on the setting up of the United Nations police force?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that arises on this statement. I think it will arise on the next statement on Egypt.

Mr. H. A. Price: Could the Foreign Secretary confirm or deny reports that over the week-end up to 18,000 Russian tanks were deployed in Hungary? If that is the figure, is it not obvious that this manoeuvre has been a long time in the planning?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot confirm the total except that there have been substantial Russian reinforcements which have moved in quickly.

Mr. S. Silverman: Reverting to the leaflet—

Mr. Speaker: I thought it was generally accepted that that should arise in the questions on the Middle East and not those on Hungary.

Mr. Silverman: That may well come, I have no doubt, but is that any reason that I should not ask the Foreign Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: I think it is a very good reason.

Mr. Jay: Has the Foreign Secretary noticed that the Russian Foreign Secretary has stated that Russia is carrying out a police action in Hungary? Does the Prime Minister realise that most of the British public regard him as personally guilty of this tragedy?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir.

Air Commodore Harvey: In view of the magnitude of the Russian forces and the build-up of the Russian forces which have entered Hungary, was it not evident, either to this Government or to the United Nations, that something was going to happen—something which has now happened?

Mr. Lloyd: It has been clear that there was a substantial build-up and that there were certain movements of Soviet troops.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should now have the statement on the Middle East. The Foreign Secretary.

MIDDLE EAST

Egypt and Israel (United Nations Resolutions)

Mr. Lloyd: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a further statement on the Israel-Egypt situation.
Since the House met on Saturday the General Assembly of the United Nations, meeting in emergency Special Session, has passed three resolutions.
The first was sponsored by a number of Asian and African states. This called for a cease-fire, the halting of the movement of military forces and arms into the area and the withdrawal of all forces in the area behind the armistice lines. It authorised the Secretary-General to obtain compliance.
The second resolution was sponsored by Canada. It requested the Secretary-General to submit within 48 hours a plan for the setting up, with the consent of the nations concerned, of an emergency international United Nations force to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with the terms of the ceasefire resolution of 2nd November.
In a telegram received yesterday morning the Secretary-General of the United Nations drew the attention of Her Majesty's Government to these resolutions and requested all parties to bring a halt to all hostile military actions in the area by 8 o'clock Greenwich Mean Time yesterday. Her Majesty's Government had already invited the French Ministers to come to London for consultations. They informed Mr. Hammarskjöld of this fact and explained that it was not possible to give him a definite answer to his message within the time limit which he had stipulated. As a result of their consultations with the French Government they sent a telegram to the Secretary-General very early this morning. This read as follows :
The Governments of the United Kingdom and France have studied carefully the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly passed on 3rd and 4th November.
They warmly welcome the idea which seems to underlie the request to the Secretary-General contained in the resolution sponsored by Canada, and adopted by the Assembly at its 563rd meeting, that an international force should be interpolated as a shield between Israel and Egypt pending a Palestine settlement and a settlement of the question of the Suez Canal. But according to their information


neither the Israeli nor the Egyptian Government has accepted such a proposal. Nor has any plan for an international force been accepted by the General Assembly or endorsed by the Security Council.
The composition of the staff and contingents of the international force would be a matter for discussion.
The two Governments continue to believe that it is necessary to interpose an international force to prevent the continuance of hostilities between Egypt and Israel, to secure the speedy withdrawal of Israeli forces, to take the necessary measures to remove obstructions and restore traffic through the Suez Canal, and to promote a settlement of the problems of the area.
Certain Anglo-French operations, with strictly limited objectives, are continuing. But as soon as the Israeli and Egyptian Governments signify acceptance of, and the United Nations endorses a plan for an international force with the above functions the two Governments will cease all military action.
In thus stating their views, the United Kingdom and French Governments would like to express their firm conviction that their action is justified. To return deliberately to the system which has produced continuing deadlock and chaos in the Middle East is now not only undesirable, but impossible. A new constructive solution is required. To this end they suggest that an early Security Council meeting at the ministerial level should be called in order to work out an international settlement which would be likely to endure, together with the means to enforce it.
This message to the Secretary-General crossed a telegram from him informing Her Majesty's Government of the passing of a third resolution. This referred to the Canadian resolution, which I have already described, and to a preliminary report from the Secretary-General on the plan to set up an emergency International United Nations Force. It called for the establishment of United Nations command to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all the terms of the earlier cease-fire resolution. It appointed General Burns, Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, Chief of Command on an emergency basis.
It authorised General Burns immediately to recruit from the Observer Corps of the Truce Supervision Organisation a limited number of officers who shall be nationals of countries other than those having permanent membership of the Security Council and further, in consultation with the Secretary-General, to undertake the recruitment directly from various Member States other than the permanent Member States of the Security Council the additional number of officers

required. Finally, it invited the Secretary-General to take such administrative measures as may be necessary for the prompt execution of the actions envisaged in this resolution.
Her Majesty's Government abstained from voting on this resolution. [HON. MEMBERS : "Shame!"] They fully approved the principle of an International United Nations Force. But although the steps called for in this latest resolution might be considered to be a beginning, they are not in themselves likely to achieve the purposes set out in our message to the Secretary-General. We do not know that hostilities between Israel and Egypt have ceased or that they will not be resumed. The measures to be taken under the latest resolution could not be sufficient to ensure that.
It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the Israel forces withdraw from Egyptian territory. We have also told the United Nations that we believe it is necessary to secure the speedy withdrawal of Israel forces. But we cannot ensure that the Israelis withdraw from Egyptian territory until we are physically in the area to keep the peace, to give the necessary guarantees and to prevent a repetition of the events of the past few years.
There must also be immediate means on the spot to take the necessary measures, as I have said, to remove obstructions and restore navigation through the Suez Canal, and to promote a settlement of the problems of the area.
It will, of course, be a matter for the Security Council, if our proposal for an early meeting at ministerial level is accepted, to consider what part the United Kingdom and France should play in achieving all the objectives to which I have referred. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government believe that the Anglo-French forces, once they are established in the area, will be the best guarantee that these purposes will be effectively and speedily achieved.

Mr. Gaitskell: The House has heard with astonishment the statement of the Foreign Secretary on why Her Majesty's Government abstained from voting on the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly setting up an international force. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Resolution was sponsored by


Canada, that New Zealand has already said she is prepared to contribute troops to this force—[An HON. MEMBER : "So are we."] On the contrary, the Government have just explained that they could not support this proposal.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that the United States Government, whilst accepting the proposal that the force should be composed of the troops of countries which are not permanent members of the Security Council, has nevertheless made it plain that she will make available aircraft and supplies for this international force? Can we clarify a little more the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the international force proposal?
Therefore, the second question I ask is this : is it not the case that in the first Resolution, again introduced by Canada, the purpose of this force was defined as of secure and to supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with the terms of the Resolution of 2nd November ; that is to say, the cease-fire, the withdrawal of the combatants to within their own territories and the absence of any other intervention by any other party? If that is the case, why did Her Majesty's Government, in replying to the Resolution passed by the Assembly, suggest that the idea of the international force was not merely to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities but also to secure a final settlement of the Suez Canal problem?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that by imposing that particular implication the effect is to confirm in the minds of the whole world that the real reason for British and French intervention here was not to separate the combatants but to seize control of the Canal? Is he further aware that if Her Majesty's Government insist that the purpose of the international force under the United Nations must be to deal with the Suez Canal problem, they will effectively sabotage the whole idea of that force?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the question of the Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman has asked why the representative of the United Kingdom abstained. First, we could not vote for a proposition which excluded detachments of the forces of the permanent members of the Security

Council from this international force. [HON. MEMBERS : "Why not?"] The reason for this is quite simple—that there has to be some reality about the situation. One has to consider the people who are able effectively to contribute those forces.
If hon. Members opposite still think that a few officers—because that is all that the Resolution amounts to—rather fewer than there have been in the Truce Supervision Organisation already, are going to solve this problem, they are quite mistaken. This Resolution may be a beginning but it will not solve this problem unless the international force is constituted to a much greater extent than is envisaged by the Resolution.
The Leader of the Opposition made a second accusation that we had done wrong in suggesting that the problems of the Suez Canal should be included to be settled whilst the international force was there. I should have thought he would have understood that the blockade on the shipping of a certain country going through the Canal—[Interruption.]— is one of the matters a settlement of which we have to try to get out of this situation. As for the talk of people being humbugs or hypocrites—[Interruption.]— those words apply to the people who for the past four years have consistently urged forcible action to deal with this matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that when Her Majesty's Government, in their reply to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, made reference to the settlement of the Suez Canal problem, all that they had in mind was ensuring the free passage of Israeli ships?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not. We had in mind all problems affecting the free and open transit through the Canal guaranteed by the 1888 Convention.

Mr. Elliot: Is it not a thousand pities that this positive, constructive proposal for an international police force, which may well be the key to the problem, should not receive much more objective treatment than apparently it has received up to now? In particular, the many points—major points, but still points of detail—such as the composition of the international force, could well be examined with an open mind, because


all of us would agree that there should be reality in this business and not merely imagination. It is also very desirable that the four belligerents should not find themselves actively engaged in a police force, if that proves to be possible.
Surely, the Leader of the Opposition is at fault in suggesting that the six principles which were voted by the United Nations in its consideration of this very question should be left out altogether when the international police force is being considered. Therefore, from all these points of view, I beg that it might be possible for the House to examine this—it may be the only solution for the problem—without the terrible heat which seems to be creeping into it just now.

Mr. Gaitskell: For my part, I entirely agree that we should examine this proposal objectively. I assure the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) that I was endeavouring to get clarification of the Government's view on it. I must, however, also say this and I put it in the form of a question. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is vitally important to distinguish between the setting up of an international force to deal with the Arab-Israeli question and an international force to impose on Egypt a solution of the Suez Canal problem? Does the Foreign Secretary realise that it is because I feel that this distinction is vital that I am pressing the difference between the two proposals?
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any information about where the proposed international force would be stationed? Is he, for instance, in agreement with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who is reported as saying today that he presumed that the force would be stationed on the border between Israel and Egypt?
May I also ask the Foreign Secretary—again, pursuing what the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove described as objective examination—why Her Majesty's Government, in their first reply on this matter, made their consent to—and, indeed, their acceptance of—the United Nations Assembly Resolution conditional on Israel and Egypt both accepting the idea of an international United Nations force, whether they still adhere to that view and whether, if Egypt accepts, as she has done, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that

nothing further can be done about this unless Israel also accepts? Could the Foreign Secretary enlighten us on these points?

Mr. Lloyd: On the first point, with regard to the question of imposing a settlement of the Suez Canal issue, there is no question of imposing a settlement. I should have thought that every sensible person would have agreed that these things having happened, it was wiser that there should be a settlement of all those matters before the international policemen were removed. With regard to where the international force is to be stationed, I think that that would be a matter for the force commander himself to discuss with the Governments concerned.
Thirdly, with regard to the matter of acceptance by Egypt and Israel, I should have thought that as a practical proposition it would very much facilitate the development of this idea if those countries did agree to accept the international force, as it would have very much facilitated matters had both countries accepted our request of last Tuesday.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it still the case that, as stated on Saturday, Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the proposal for an international force depends upon the acceptance by Israel and Egypt of this proposal?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that for practical purposes that is bound to influence us.

Mr. McAdden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend urge upon our representative at the United Nations that in any future discussion on this subject, the test as to the composition of this United Nations force should not be whether those prepared to participate are small Powers who cannot provide the forces or large Powers who can, but should be the willingness of the nations concerned to accept United Nations observers and a police force in their own country?

Mr. Lloyd: There is something in what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Benn: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he authorised the broadcast from Cyprus yesterday at 0545


hours by the Supreme Command to Egypt? It ran as follows :
It means that we are obliged to bomb you wherever you are. Imagine your villages being bombed. Imagine your wives, children, mothers, fathers and grandfathers escaping from their houses and leaving their property behind. This will happen to you if you hide behind your women in the villages … If they do not evacuate, there is no doubt that your villages and homes will be destroyed. You have committed a sin—that is, you placed your confidence in Abdul Nasser.
In view of the fact that I received this text from the Foreign Office this morning, will the Foreign Secretary take responsibility for it and explain whether it does, in fact, lie behind the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no knowledge of that broadcast. [HON. MEMBERS : Why not?]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member said that this was something which had been issued on the authority of the Supreme Commander.

Mr. Hamilton: How did the Foreign Office know?

Sir J. Hutchison: rose—

Mr. Benn: On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether I had said that this communication was issued by the Foreign Office. I wish to reply that the copy arrived from the Foreign Office and was broadcast from Cyprus on the command of the Supreme Allied Commander.

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member puts down a Question—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Bevan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Sir James Hutchison.

Sir J. Hutchison: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree—

Mr. de Freitas: On a point of order. [An HON. MEMBER : "A real one?"] This is only the second point of order that I have raised in eleven years. The Foreign Secretary must have knowledge of this. He has just denied knowledge, but surely he must have knowledge of it. Is not this the very broadcast which the

United Nations representative, Colonel Eley, protested about, as it would bring war on Egypt.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says this is only the second point of order that he has raised. It is certainly not a point of order, so there is only one to his credit.

Sir J. Hutchison: rose—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friends. Since the Minister of Defence is to make a statement to the House later, in the course of this Sitting, and since he is responsible for the Allied Command, do we understand that he will reply to this question in the course of that statement?

Mr. Speaker: If he is permitted to, he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: A moment ago the Foreign Secretary purported to give the House the conditions under which he would be willing to order the cessation of hostilities from Cyprus. As a result of his denial of responsibility for what the Supreme Command do, are we to understand that he is in any position at all to give orders?

Mr. Speaker: That is rather complicated point of order. I had called Sir James Hutchison. I think that he should be given a chance to speak.

Sir J. Hutchison: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in what again seems to me to be an unprecedented situation. On the eve of Prorogation, how is the House to deal with a serious situation of this kind when, on two occasions within the last 10 minutes, we have been told that responsibility for things done in the name of the Government was not accepted by any Minister of the Crown?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must know that that is not a point of order. Sir James Hutchison.

Sir J. Hutchison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fact that this country has, in principle, agreed to the proposals of the Canadian Government for a police force—and many of us hope that details can be worked out—blows to smithereens the allegation that


we were using this situation only as an excuse to hold on to the Suez Canal zone?

Mr. Bevan: In view of the question which has just been asked, may I ask the Government to give their attention to what appears to be becoming apparent in almost all quarters of the House, that the war aims of the Government are being elicited from them day by day, and that they are being changed day by day? [Interruption.]
I earnestly suggest to hon. Members opposite that some of us are trying to maintain an objective attitude in this matter. It is extremely difficult to do so in face of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes here without being armed with the information he ought to possess. If it is being said that the main objective of the Government has always been to separate the Jewish and Egyptian forces and not to achieve any objective beyond that, how does it come about that the Supreme Command uses this language in a leaflet :
One thing which you can do is to wear civilian clothes. And go to your homes to see if any soldiers or tanks are concealed in your villages. Tell them to clear out before we come and destroy those villages. If they do no : evacuate, there is no doubt that your villages and homes will be destroyed. You have committed a sin, that is, you have placed confidence in Abd Al-Nasir and believed his lies. Now you are hearing the truth.
This is the Supreme Allied Command, addressing Egyptian soldiers, sailors and pilots. In my respectful submission we have here not a military action to separate Israeli and Egyptian troops ; we have a declaration of war against the Egyptian Government, in the most brutal terms. Surely it is very hard indeed for one to use moderate language to describe behaviour of this sort. Will the Government stop lying to the House of Commons?

Mr. Lloyd: The purposes which the Government have in mind in undertaking this action are to stop the hostilities, to prevent their resumption, and to procure a settlement of the problems of the area. The directive to the Supreme Commander was to avoid civilian casualties. The test is what has actually happened—and that is what has happened.

Mr. Bevan: May I, therefore, ask a question? What we are having is almost

a serial story. Will the Government give an assurance to the House of Commons that they will issue a White Paper setting out these various pronouncements to the Egyptian people, so that we may study them? Surely it is necessary that the House of Commons should know what is being said on its authority and behalf. After all, the guilt will be ours ; it will not be that of our soldiers, or the Supreme Command. Will the Minister therefore give a guarantee that this information will appear as early as may be in the form of a White Paper?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order. We are asking today what would, in fact, be asked even upon quite an unimportant occasion, in order that we might be acquainted with what is being done. Now, however, we have what purports to be a series of definitive war aims appearing in a series of propaganda leaflets from the Army. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite must surely be more jealous of the rights of the House than this. Are not we entitled to receive from the Government an assurance that we shall have a White Paper setting out these pronouncements, so that hon. Members opposite might be less ignorant than they are now?

Mr. Lloyd: I have said that I will consider the matter.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Gaitskell: rose—

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I should like, if I may, to have an opportunity to examine the various matters raised on this issue and to consider a reply. [HON. MEMBERS : "When?"] Meanwhile, I think that the House would wish to know that I have had a flash signal from the Commander-in-Chief in the Eastern Mediterranean which affects even the discussion which is now taking place. That is why I intervened, as I know the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will understand.
This is the flash signal, which is, of course, subject to confirmation :
Governor and Military Commander, Port Said now discussing surrender terms with Brigadier Butler. Cease-fire ordered.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. If we adhere to the programme laid down, we have only a short time left before Prorogation. It is very difficult to discuss this matter by question and answer. If anyone moved the Adjournment of the House, we could have a proper debate in the time that is left, if that suggestion is agreeable.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): We are working in difficult circumstances owing to the Prorogation today. The Minister of Defence has still to make a statement, and if he might make that statement I think it very likely that we shall reach nearly five o'clock. We shall be ready to move the Adjournment, if so desired.

Mr. Gaitskell: rose—

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Gaitskell: We have not finished asking the Foreign Secretary questions. The Prime Minister has intervened with an important statement and we must really be allowed to ask him supplementary questions about it.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Elliot: rose—

Mr. Gaitskell: If the Prime Minister's statement means that there has been a general cease-fire in Egypt and that all military operations have ceased, then, for my part, I am only too delighted. But in that case I want to ask the Prime Minister whether, in his announcement. he meant that it was a local cease-fire or a general cease-fire, whether military operations are continuing elsewhere or not? If, indeed, this cease-fire is general, will he undertake to carry out the rest of the United Nations Assembly Resolution and withdraw our troops from the area?

The Prime Minister: I read out the signal as I received it, because I thought that the House ought to have immediate information of the news at my disposal. Quite clearly, I cannot possibly know

how wide or narrow—[HON. MEMBERS : "Why?"]; no, I cannot—is the area covered by the cease-fire ; but I should have thought every one of our fellow countrymen would have been delighted it has taken place.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I understand that the Minister of Defence has a statement to make. There are only 25 minutes left, so that if we do not start upon it we shall not get it at all.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Before we leave this matter, is it possible for the House to discover whether the Prime Minister has exchanged congratulations with Marshal Khrushchev?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am going to answer one point when I get peace to do it.

Mr. G. Brown: All right; do not get angry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would rather the right hon. Gentleman did not speak to me like that. That remark was really unjustified. I have a very calm temper ; you know that very well.

Mr. Brown: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I take this opportunity to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was trying to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), if I may. Of course, I cannot answer him ; but I do think that, with the limited time that we have, if we are to hear the statement by the Minister of Defence, we ought to have it now and have questions on that. Mr. Head.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance. Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I regret raising a point of order with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as you have so recently come to occupy the Chair, but I rise to make the point that there are many hon. Members who have risen to their feet every few minutes during this last hour and ten minutes, and have done so throughout Question Time this last week. If it is necessary for me to grow to more than 16 stone in order to attract Mr. Speaker's eye. it may injure


my health considerably. There are some back bench Members, who have equal rights in the House, who have not been permitted to make any observations at all at any time this week. I have risen every minute for the last 65 minutes to put a very important question, and I should be glad to have the opportunity to put it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am entirely in the hands of the House. Prorogation is to come at 5 o'clock. If the House would rather continue with questions instead of the statement by the Minister of Defence, I am quite willing ; but I thought the House would be anxious to hear the statement.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. I rose to put a supplementary question to the Foreign Secretary, who has never answered a supplementary question from me. I rose on a point of order. How, in those circumstances, can we leave the Foreign Secretary merely because he is knocked out of the ring?

Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order. May I respectfully—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order ; I cannot hear what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I respectfully suggest that the simplest solution—

Sir C. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am having a point of order put by the Leader of the Opposition. I can have only one at a time. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I suggest that the simplest solution would be for the Minister of Defence to make his statement, and for my hon. Friends to be allowed to continue to put questions to the Foreign Secretary as well as to the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is the wish of the House, most certainly. Mr. Head.

Sir C. Taylor: May I point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair fictitious point of order after fictitious point of order was raised by hon. Members opposite. They were

used as a ruse to stop other hon. Members asking questions which they were perfectly entitled to do and as a trick to get in and catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Has the Chair or the House any means of preventing these fictitious points of order being raised?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that I am quite able to answer points of order and to say if they do not arise, or whether they are points of order or not.

Egypt (Military Situation)

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Antony Head): At 0515 hours G.M.T. British and French paratroops were dropped in the Port Said area. Landings were made on the airfield to the west of Port Said and around the bridges to the south of the town.
Repeated warnings have been given to the civilian population of Port Said to keep away from clearly defined areas of danger.
Since then my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has read a telegram from the Allied Commander-in-Chief.
I gave the House an undertaking that I would say something in amplification of the circumstances of the sinking of the Egyptian frigate "Domiat."
At 0130 hours on 1st November the cruiser "Newfoundland" was moving up the Gulf of Suez when she observed a darkened ship passing her in the opposite direction. "Newfoundland" turned parallel with her and identified her as an Egyptian frigate. A signal was flashed to her to "Stop or I fire." This was correctly acknowledged and the frigate appeared to slow down. "Newfoundland" signalled to report she had stopped.
The frigate then switched off her navigation lights and trained her armament on the "Newfoundland." The latter then opened fire and the frigate opened fire immediately afterwards. After five minutes the frigate was seen to be sinking and firing ceased. Searchlights were trained on the water to assist in rescue work and 70 survivors were picked up.
Rescue work continued for an hour and a half, after which a marker buoy was dropped and the South African vessel "President Steyn" was asked to continue the search.

Mr. Stokes: My right hon. Friend has said that if the Prime Minister's statement


means that there is a general cease-fire nobody would be more delighted than we on this side of the House. Am I to understand from the Minister of Defence that the statement means that, or that it relates only to the garrison at Port Said?

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman and ourselves are in an identical position about this. The only information we have of the situation is the telegram which has been read out. [HON. MEMBERS : "Read it."] I am quite prepared to read it again if the House so wishes. It says :
From Allied C.-in-C.
Governor and Military Commander Port Said now discussing surrender terms with Brigadier Butler. Cease-fire ordered.

Mr. Stokes: Then it would appear that it is probably limited to Port Said. That being so—otherwise, my questions become irrelevant—will the Minister say whether the parachute troops were dropped on both sides of the Suez Canal or only on one side, and whether he has had any information as to the strength of the garrison at E1 Fayid? Are they in force further down the Canal or is the main body of the Egyptian troops withdrawn towards Cairo?
Thirdly, having regard to the fact that the Canal is now effectively blocked and that it will be a considerable engineering operation to clear it, which really cannot be done successfully without the peaceful co-operation of the Egyptian people, can instructions now be given to change Her Majesty's Government's policy and to stop bombing the people who have been the victims of the major aggression?

Mr. Head: The location of the troops was, as I have said, some to the west of Port Said on the airfield, which is seven or eight miles to the west of Port Said, the others astride the two bridges to the south of the town west of the Canal. The necessary vessels, and so forth, for the clearing of the Canal are, of course, included in the force which is now present off the Canal, and I cannot help feeling that the clearance of the Canal would take place a great deal faster with our cooperation than if no British resources were used for that purpose.

Mr. P. Williams: In the interests of minimising the casualties among British

troops, can my right hon. Friend state whether there have been any casualties in naval actions this far?

Mr. Head: I do not want to be categorical, but I should say that today's operations were restricted to airborne troops. I have no detailed information about casualties as a whole, but, from reports, I should say that there is every hope that they would be very light.

Mr. Hale: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the report that an Israeli plane was shot down by British forces last night? Can he say whether the landing this morning was timed precisely at the time of the expiry of Mr. Hammarskjöld's message deliberately, or by chance? Was the reply to the United Nations, who sat waiting for him for some hours, deliberately delayed until after the operations had been initiated?
Is he aware that I have had a radiogram from Egypt which reports that
residential areas in main Egyptian towns are being indiscriminately bombed, houses, streets and passenger buses are strafed with bullets by raiding planes … British radio stations are now threatening the bombing of railway stations, waterworks, electricity supply. British journalists in Cairo give eye witness reports of destruction of civilian property, mosques, schools and churches. Number of killed and wounded, amongst them innocent women and children, mounting hourly …
That telegram is signed on behalf of the Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions.
This, after all, is the country to which the right hon. Gentleman was exporting tanks two months ago and offering loans of £30 million and £40 million only a few weeks before. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statements made from the Government Front Bench recently have been so far from the truth that it is difficult for us to know now where we can get reliable information?

Mr. Head: The timing of this operation was based on the only possible thing on which one could carry out such an operation; that is, operational considerations, which would mean a considerable time ago, and it had nothing to do with Mr. Hammarskjöld's speech—[HON. MEMBERS : "How long?"] The hon. Gentleman asked me whether it was timed with Mr. Hammarskjöld's speech, which was made only a few hours ago. The timing of this operation was fixed at least two days ago.
I have been carefully into the question of the areas bombed and the extent and the accuracy of our bombing. I would say that what is contained in that telegram is completely untrue. The bombing has been absolutely and strictly limited to military targets, and has been extremely accurate.

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister of Defence say whether Colonel Nasser is drowning in the lickspittle of the party opposite?

Mr. Grimond: May I ask whether this news from Egypt—which we must all welcome if it means a cessation of hostilities—does not give us a chance to set about binding up the wounds in the Western alliance? At this stage of world events, with the happenings now taking place in Eastern Europe—and which may be repeated in other countries in Eastern Europe—it is tragic that we should be separated in any degree from our allies and the Commonwealth, as I am afraid that we are. Cannot we, therefore, say something rather more encouraging about the Canadian proposal for observers than has so far been published? Cannot we make it clear that, anyway, within the near future we will accept some observers in the area and some chance of a direction to hand over the future to the United Nations?

Mr. Lloyd: That point was made clear by the Prime Minister, and we have said it again and again. When a force is constituted we are perfectly willing to hand over our responsibilities to it. By that statement we stand. But it must be a force constituted with sufficient strength and with the means to carry out this task.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it the fact that Colonel Eley, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation representative in Cairo, protested to us that the terms of the British radio announcement, making a change in the future of our bombing tactics would be such that, as he said, there would be terrific loss of civilian life? Does not that very much endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) when he read out the terms of that broadcast? Will the Minister of Defence, in those circumstances, say what reply was given to Colonel Eley? After all, he

must have some knowledge about it—it was in The Times this morning?

Mr. Head: These targets were carefully selected and every single airman concerned took a pride in the operation not from the point of view of damage, and so forth, but purely that he carried out his mission without loss of civil life. As regards Colonel Eley's statement about this change of programme causing great additional loss of life, events that I have had full information about since the change was made do not confirm that statement.

Mr. Stokes: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on two points? First, with regard to the leaflets, is it or is it not true that leaflets have been dropped on both sides—both on the Israelis and the Egyptians—or only on one side? Secondly, pursuing the important point about the Suez Canal and its blocking, it is obvious that there can be no danger to British shipping for quite some time. One of the objects of the Government's intervention was to take care of £50 million of British shipping that was going to be in the neighbourhood. Clearly, none of it is in the Canal or likely to be there for a long time. Surely this makes it inexcusable that the bombing should go on of so-called military targets, such as military centres and telephone exchanges, which are bound to be in the middle of civilian centres?

Mr. Head: I admit that it is hypothetical, but the chance of British shipping being damaged if there had been no intervention by us would have been much increased. On the question of bombing telephone exchanges, if some hon. Gentleman will give me details of what telephone exchange, or where, I will look into it. So far as I know, not one telephone exchange has been bombed.

Mr. Burden: In view of the concern on the question of the efficiency and accuracy of our bombing, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making available in the Library of the House of Commons reconnaissance photographs taken of the bombing, with details of that bombing, for so to do would set the minds of a great many people very much at rest?

Mr. Head: I regret that I could not hear the whole of that question. If the


House would like to see photographs subsequently I will try to make them available.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he knows that no civilian life has been lost in Egypt and, further, whether the conflict be short or prolonged, will he give an assurance that atomic weapons of no kind will be used?

Mr. Head: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. I never said that no civilian life had been lost. I said that every possible attempt had been made in these operations to reduce the loss of life to the absolute minimum. So far as the use of atomic weapons is concerned, that hardly seems to arise in the light of the telegram which has just come in.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night the Leader of the Opposition, in a scurrilous party political broadcast—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Such language is not proper.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, may I have your permission to withdraw the offensive phrase and ask my right hon. Friend to note that if he wishes to have information about bombed telephone exchanges he might well ask the Leader of the Opposition, who referred to this in his speech last night?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is running very short.

Mr. K. Robinson: May I ask the Minister of Defence, or the Foreign Secretary, if they have any further news about British civilians? Have they seen the report in The Times today, which contrasts the successful evacuation of 1,300 Americans by the American Embassy with the total failure of the British Embassy to evacuate a single British civilian? In view of the fact that the Government have been three months preparing this aggression against Egypt, is not this criminal negligence?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: We had a certain amount more information about British

civilians and the Embassy staff and certain other people through the Swiss authorities. On the question of arranging evacuation, on repeated occasions we encouraged those who were not essential to leave Egypt. So far as the others are concerned, we have no reason to believe otherwise than that they are safe.

Mr. Stokes: Arising out of the statement by the Minister of Defence that he knows nothing about the bombing of telephone exchanges and other communications, is he aware of the telegram sent to the United Nations during the night, which stated that the British radio bad announced an imminent switch, including communication centres, railway stations and telephone exchanges, many of which were located in densely populated areas, in their bombing?

Mr. Lloyd: May I answer this, as this matter was referred by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to me, at once? I gave him categorically my word and the word of the Government that no such orders had been issued.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Foreign Secretary say why it was announced on the British radio?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not know where this came from.

Air Commodore Harvey: May I ask whether it is not evident that communication with Egypt is still good, as my right hon. Friend has only just received a cable? Secondly, may I ask why the party opposite looks so (miserable because a cease-fire has been ordered?

Mr. Beswick: With regard to the cease-fire, can the Foreign Secretary say, with his knowledge of history, whether on any occasion in the past a body of British people has cheered so loudly when a big nation has beaten a small one like this?

Mr. Lloyd: The cheers on this side of the House were due to the fact that it looked as though casualties would cease.

Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask the Minister of Defence whether he and his colleagues will see that, when it is consistent with the security and interests of the nation, this House will be provided


with White Papers showing what kind of propaganda or military commands have been issued in the name of this House in the Middle East? Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not obvious—we were all delighted to hear of the cease-fire—by the phrenetic cheering of hon. Members opposite that they were willing to grasp at any straw? Will the right hon. Gentleman now take courage in both hands and extend this cease-fire in accordance with the United Nations Resolution?

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman asked me first about the publication of a White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said that he would consider that. With regard to the extension of the cease-fire, I am not quite clear about the hon. Gentleman's meaning. If he means the extension in Egypt itself from Port Said to the rest of Egypt.

Mr. Davies: Yes.

Mr. Head: —I am certain that that will be the Commander-in-Chiefs aim at the earliest possible opportunity. I think that it would be entirely wrong on an occasion like this, where only he knows the situation at Port Said, if we here were entirely to take charge. His aim has been to minimise the casualties.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Minister aware that, in our opinion, what is necessary

now if this is, as we suspect, an entirely local cease-fire, that Her Majesty's Government, without further ado, should themselves accept the cease-fire generally for Egypt as a whole, and not pursue their course of forcing Egypt to unconditional surrender?

Mr. Head: I think that the answer to that is that the right hon. Gentleman should wait and see exactly what it is.

Mr. J. Eden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the B.B.C. has been broadcasting to the Arab world details of the shameful partisan demonstrations sponsored by the Opposition? [HON. MEMBERS : "Read the Observer."] May I ask the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. and right hon. Friends whether they wish out of this issue that Egypt or Britain should win?

Mr. Hector Hughes: The Foreign Secretary was asked a question earlier about Cardinal Mindszenty, but he was then unable to give an answer. Is he now in the position to tell the House whether he knows anything about the whereabouts or the safety of Cardinal Mindszenty?

Mr. Lloyd: The only report which I have is to the effect that he is in the United States Legation in Budapest. I am not certain whether that is true or not.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners :

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. Speaker: (in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, giving the Royal Assent to :

1. Hill Farming Act, 1956.
2. Crown Estate Act, 1956.
3. Copyright Act, 1956.
4. Education (Scotland) Act. 1956.
5. Medical Act, 1956.
6. South of Scotland Electricity Order Confirmation Act, 1956.

PROROGATION

HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the Royal Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Commands, as follows :

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: 

I shall always retain the happiest recollections of the visit which I paid with My Dear Husband to the Federation of Nigeria and of the moving welcome accorded to us there. We also recall with pleasure our visits to the Kingdoms of Norway and Sweden and the gracious reception extended to us by the peoples of those countries. The warmth of the regard shown by My peoples of East Africa and Mauritius to My Dear Sister during her recent visit has been a source of great satisfaction to Me.

I have also been very happy to welcome to this country the President of our oldest ally, Portugal, and the King of Iraq, with whom we are so closely associated in the Bagdad Pact.

My Government have been gravely concerned at the outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Egypt. They resolved, in conjunction with the French Government, to make a quick and decisive intervention to protect the lives of our nationals and to safeguard the Suez Canal by separating the combatants and restoring peace. My Government have proposed that the United Nations should take over responsibility for policing the area, as a prelude to a satisfactory settlement in the Middle East. They earnestly trust that this purpose will be achieved.

My Government have maintained their efforts in the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations to achieve an international agreement on conventional and nuclear disarmament.

The Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth met in London at the end of June. Their discussions were prompted by a desire to further the


common interests of their countries and to seek by all means to promote peace and security in the world. My Government have continued to support the purposes of the Colombo Plan and have increased their provision for technical assistance.

The situation in Cyprus has caused My Ministers profound concern. In the face of violence and provocation My Forces have shown exemplary steadiness and forbearance. My Government have taken a fresh initiative by appointing a Commissioner to make recommendations for a new and liberal Constitution for the Island.

I was deeply grieved at the loss of life and great devastation from a disastrous hurricane suffered by several of My West Indian territories. I am glad to know that with the aid of assistance from My Government in the United Kingdom, from others of My Governments, from foreign countries and public appeals they have since made good progress towards recovery.

A Round Table Conference was appointed to consider proposals for closer association of Malta with the United Kingdom. My Government accepted their report and discussions preparatory to the consequential legislation are now proceeding.

An Act was passed conferring powers on Me to provide for a British Caribbean Federation. It was agreed at a Conference with a delegation from the Federation of Malaya that a new Constitution providing for full self-government and independence within the Commonwealth should be introduced by August, 1957, if possible. An Order in Council has been made providing for an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly of Sarawak.

The pay and conditions of service of members of the Services on regular engagements have been improved. Plans have been developed for using My Forces in support of the local civil defence services which have continued to play their part in home defence.

Members of the House of Commons: 

I thank you for the provision which you have made for the public services.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: 

It has been the constant concern of My Ministers to maintain full employment, to encourage savings by vigorous and imaginative incentives and to preserve the strength and stability of the economy.

In order to stimulate competitive enterprise an Act has been passed to provide for the registration of restrictive trading agreements and their judicial examination by a special court, and to prohibit the collective enforcement of resale price conditions.

The law dealing with copyright and related matters has been revised.

The price guarantees and grants determined by My Ministers have provided valuable support for the agricultural industry. Farmers and workers have faced with courage and determination the difficulties caused by the bad weather this year.

Further help has been provided for agriculture in the hill farming and livestock rearing areas.

Further financial assistance has been provided for the fishing industry.

An Act has been passed to safeguard the health, and to provide for the safety and welfare, of those employed in agriculture and forestry.

My Ministers have ended the Government purchase of imported bacon and have arranged for the import of sugar for home consumpton to be returned to private trading. I have given My Assent to an Act to carry out the Government's obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Measures have been enacted to introduce new arrangements for financing agricultural research and to amend the constitution of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

My Government have announced a five-year plan for extending technical education. An Act has also been passed amending the schemes of superannuation for teachers.

The law relating to education in Scotland has been amended.

My Government have been much concerned with the problem of traffic


on the roads and legislation has been passed to improve its regulation and to promote road safety.

New criminal courts have been set up in Liverpool and Manchester and legislation has been enacted to make further reforms in the administration of justice. The system of legal aid has been extended to proceedings in the county courts in England and Wales and the jurisdiction of these courts has been increased.

The law relating to rating and valuation in England and Wales has been amended. Legislation has also been passed to amend the law of valuation and rating in Scotland and to provide a new basis for the payment of equalisation grant to Scottish local authorities for an interim period.

Legislation has been enacted to abate the evils of air pollution.

The structure of the housing subsidies in England and Wales has been modified so as to encourage the building of houses to replace slums and to relieve the congestion of our cities. The compensation payable to certain owner-occupiers and businesses affected by slum clearance has been improved.

An Act has been passed to provide for the establishment of a General Dental Council.

Family allowances have been extended, improvements have been made in the war pensions and national insurance benefits of widows with children, the earnings rules for insurance pensioners have been relaxed, and

provision has been made for those receiving workmen's compensation who are totally disabled. The national assistance scales have been raised. The pensions of retired members of the public services have been increased.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: 

I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.

Then a Commission for Proroguing the Parliament was read ;

After which the Lord Chancellor said :
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons :
By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in Her Majesty's Name and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the sixth day of November. One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued until Tuesday the sixth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six.

In view of the fact that we are separating for only a few hours, I will not trouble hon. Members to observe the ancient custom of shaking hands with me. That is not to say that my affection for them has suffered any diminution.

End of the First Session (opened 7th June, 1955) of the Forty-first Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.